My personal problem is that I play Magic Online (MTGO) and so the rules and ban list is officially taken from http://mtgcommander.net
It must be noted that Magic Online does not follow the duel commander rules and ban list from http://www.duelcommander.com, which is by far the most popular method for dueling.
I have no choice, like a local play group to determine how the game should be best constructed.
Why do I play commander?
I like to select card variety from as many sets as possible.
Variety of decks.
Price. Buying one of a card, even if expensive is more enticing than buying up to four of an expensive card. I'm just far more priced into playing the format for personal pleasure.
Magic for me is just as much about puzzle solving making decks as well as play. Having a 100 card format, with only one of a card, is something that really resonates with me.
I don't know much about the people who are behind http://mtgcommander.net. First of all I'd like to thank them for the format and maintaining some semblance of rules and a ban list. Lets not bite the hand that fed us.
However, my problem is that as a few individuals they just don't have the capacity to understand the greater community that commander has become and how commander as a format has grown and expanded.
As far as I can see the commander format for multiplayer is maintained by a group of friends; Scott, Toby, Gavin and Sheldon. They meet quarterly apparently. They just don't have the experience or time to consume information like Wizards of the Coast or the general community. Their local play is just never going to see the spectrum of how commander is played.
Commander has matured and grown beyond their capacity, fact. An example of this in the past was their slow uptake on banning Prophet of Kruphix. It shows a clear example where they simply didn't have the experience of playing or constructing decks and play testing with particular cards. It wasn't until I guess, we said "enough is enough", that they relinquished.
There is a need for maintaining the commander format pro-actively, not re-actively. Casual vs Competitive
Probably the biggest issues for commander in general, especially for the ban list, is the growing separation between the format becoming an increasingly competitive format. There is a growing divide between casual fun play and those that like to make decks as good as they can.
This is really an interesting subject. Will commander be a legitimate future format that sees tournament play? In my opinion, it very much should be. I'd love to watch professionals tackle the format.
For those that think this is not something that will ever happen, lets remember this is a format that has it's own annual set, such is its popularity. Never say never.
Does this mean that casual and competitive can't go side-by-side together in one bundle of rules and bannings? Well debatable, but I believe a mix between the duel commander (http://www.duelcommander.com) and multiplayer (http://mtgcommander.net) rules and ban list can make for a complete format.
The argument that if you want to play more competitively, then play other formats like Vintage, Legacy or Modern, I'll point you back to the top where I've listed why I like commander format over these. This will be the same among a lot of you.
Duel format does not reflect the multiplayer format.
This is more on Wizards of the Coast. They have decided that the same the rules and banning (http://mtgcommander.net) apply to both duel and multiplayer format. A lot of this might be due to them not really wanting to invest in two different outside groups making decisions. It is after all a recipe for conflicts. However if WotC were to take on the role of official moderators, then we would probably see the result of demand for better rules and banning for the dueling format as well.
Whats wrong with the current multiplayer ban list? (and duel for MTGO)
One of the biggest current problems is that Sol Ring and Mana Crypt creates a skewed advantage to games in general, where in starting hands, they determine the outcome of games far more than anything else.
In my close to 12,000 commander games I've played, without a doubt the experience that ruins it the most is frequency of games that are determined by a couple of cards in a players starting hand.
It's actually does one of the things that these rules committee (http://mtgcommander.net) didn't want:
This is summarized as “Create games that you’d love to remember, not the ones others would like to forget.”
Games where one player runs away with the game in the first couple of turns is certainly not fun for the group as a whole. Fail.
I've never encountered anybody online who doesn't think Sol Ring and Mana Crypt shouldn't be removed from the format to make the play experience more fun. Does this not just scream a desire from a community to make changes!?
Hundreds of conversations about this subject through the course of games, and everybody is in agreement.
However in my opinion, commander will never be a legitimate future tournament format while we still have these cards. This isn't even a casual vs competitive debate, as these cards ruin it for both. http://www.duelcommander.com understands this concept, however, the jolly little bunch at http://mtgcommander.net do not. Why do we have to suffer a small groups failings?
Another huge problem for Magic Online players, is the slow uptake to implement rules and bannings. It can take months before changes are made. I feel that if Wizards of the Coast were to maintain the rules and banning themselves, then there would be much more incentive to update the program in a timely manner. It turns out their schedule does not coincide with Scott, Toby, Gavin and Sheldon little get together.
Commander is now one of the leading formats for driving sales of Magic the Gathering cards, so Wizards of the Coast interest in this format is a priority.
It starts here boys and girls. I feel that this is just going to be something that is inevitable. So why do we need to prolong or wait for something more proactive?
The MTG Salvation website alone proves that as a forum of discussion, that we are far more informed in deciding how the game can be maintained, than four dudes who don't even play together much (maybe not at all anymore).
This seems like a lot of misunderstanding or, worse, intentionally misrepresenting the actual scenario to fit your preference.
Wizards has no effect on either format now and will not in the future. Multiplayer Commander was a community driven format that caught on and became immensely popular. Duel Commander spawned from that to provide a more competitive environment.
I get that it would be nice for Duel Commander players to have the option to play online, but Wizards taking over one group or the other has no bearing on this. They already don't interfere with Multiplayer Commander and yet coded it into MTGO. The quest should be to add Duel Commander, not supplant Multiplayer Commander on MTGO.
I am also confused on the assertion that the current RC has no experience doing what they are doing. Sheldon is a judge who has been working long enough around Magic to know at least something about it. And, at least 1 committee member is already a Wizards employee. I don't know enough about the rest of the RC, but I know they have all been involved in Magic at a professional level in some capacity. If I recall, this started out as a judge format since the creators were all judges.
I am not suggesting that they are omnipotent and can do no wrong, but that is a far cry from being inept at handling the format.
They meet often enough and their decisions are made at the same time Wizards makes their own Banned lists announcements. This allows ample time for those same changes to made in MTGO 3 weeks later (when the ban list changes go into effect online).
I disagree that Duel is in any way nearly as popular as Multiplayer Commander. It may be different in your area, but I doubt that is true across the wide spectrum of LGS's and players.
So, while there can certainly be changes made to add Duel Commander to MTGO (which seems to be what most of this post is about), Wizards taking over either format will help no one in the long run.
Wizards has no effect on either format now and will not in the future. Multiplayer Commander was a community driven format that caught on and became immensely popular. Duel Commander spawned from that to provide a more competitive environment.
No offense, but Wizards have a whole team working on making the Commander annal sets. To say they don't have a say on the Commander format is a not true.
I disagree that Duel is in any way nearly as popular as Multiplayer Commander. It may be different in your area, but I doubt that is true across the wide spectrum of LGS's and players.
So, while there can certainly be changes made to add Duel Commander to MTGO (which seems to be what most of this post is about), Wizards taking over either format will help no one in the long run.
Multiplayer is definitely more popular than duel, although there are more queues for duel on MTGO in general (but number of players about the same). People playing paper commander are realistically only going to gather for multiplayer magic, although I'm sure duel does see some play in stores.
However that's not what this post is about. Most of this post is about the failings of http://mtgcommander.net as a future method of maintaining the rules and banning of commander.
I am also confused on the assertion that the current RC has no experience doing what they are doing.
For me this is their failure to uptake what has been happening in the last couple of years. I mean do they really listen to whats going on after new sets are released? Do they have the time, or even inclination? The answer will be no. This is just by shear numbers. Nothing to do with them personally. I'm sure they are intelligent, etc. Its just that you can't keep up with the demands of Magic players and releases, unless you are directly working for the company or invest a lot of time and resources into it.
I trust the RC more than WotC not to make egregious mistakes. And to admit them quickly and fix them when they do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I trust the RC more than WotC not to make egregious mistakes. And to admit them quickly and fix them when they do.
Counterpoint: The laughable list of cards that are not banned in Commander (of which Sol Ring is the obvious poster child). Compared to that the Modern Banlist is a masterpiece.
And no, the RC is not and has never been interested in changing nor admitting mistakes. They've outright said that they do not care what the majority of the community wants and would rather see the format die than change their philosophy (it's buried in one of the banlist discussion threads, forgive me if I don't dig it up to quote here). I can trust WotC to at least do the profitable thing, I can't trust RC to do anything but what they want to do.
Keep in mind that EDH is meant to be a format for kitchen table players - people who know each other, bound by mutual respect, following a polite agreement that everybody gets to have fun and nobody should be a jerk.
This also explains a lot about the RC's philosophy. They ban cards and make rules changes based on what they, personally, find fun or unfun. It isn't meant to be rigorous in any way... and that shows. Rules changes that many players have been clamoring for for years get ignored (poison counters to 20, limiting extra turns) while other rules changes come out of nowhere (tuck rule).
The RC's attitude if you don't like it is to convince your playgroup to implement a house rule. The easy analogy here is open source software: if you don't like the canonical version, modify it yourself.
This all breaks down when sitting down in a competitive environment with strangers. Even if we mutually respect each other and want to just have fun, what your playgroup considers bad behavior might be different from mine. Maybe you hate two-card infinite combos like Mike and Trike while I hate decks that generate huge amounts of mana too quickly with cards like Gaea's Cradle. Everybody has a different idea of what "don't be a jerk" means.
I don't want Wizards to take over EDH, but I do think there's room for a competitive version. Before last month's rules update, I felt that French (aka Duel) Commander filled that niche nicely. But the change to 20 life and the subsequent unbanning of problem cards like Grindstone have thrown that up in the air.
Before November, I strongly felt that any organized or semi-organized play, where there any prizes or even a semblance of competitiveness, should be using the French Commander banlist... even in multiplayer. I'm cautiously optimistic that French Commander will find its footing again.
The RC's attitude if you don't like it is to convince your playgroup to implement a house rule. The easy analogy here is open source software: if you don't like the canonical version, modify it yourself.
And this arguement falls flat on its face (even in a "casual" setting) when you play on MtGO, or in a neutral location like a card shop, and you don't get to change the rules. You're forced to use the "official" banlist/rules, like it or not. As such, I would very much prefer the banlist to be handled by people who actually care about people as a whole, rather than foisting the issues on others to handle for themselves. If they don't want to handle it then why should they be the ones allowed to?
The RC's attitude if you don't like it is to convince your playgroup to implement a house rule. The easy analogy here is open source software: if you don't like the canonical version, modify it yourself.
And this arguement falls flat on its face (even in a "casual" setting) when you play on MtGO, or in a neutral location like a card shop, and you don't get to change the rules. You're forced to use the "official" banlist/rules, like it or not. As such, I would very much prefer the banlist to be handled by people who actually care about people as a whole, rather than foisting the issues on others to handle for themselves. If they don't want to handle it then why should they be the ones allowed to?
Exactly this.
While House Rules work with set groups and set areas of friends, it does not work in neutral environments like a card store playing against strangers. And while that may not be every player in EDH, that represents a huge amount of players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I think that the attitude is that they want as few bannings as possible. I understand it. We want people to play with their cards. This is a casual format that allows you to play almost any card. They will ban a card when it is clearly too powerful, all by itself, but they are not trying to equalize a competitive game type.
Duel Commander is a different game. I don't like it. They have too many cards banned and it is a combo heavy format.
I agree that some artifact mana should be banned. Turn one Sol Ring had a disproportionate win ratio. Tooth and Nail and Omniscience can also bite it. They are much more powerful than PoK or Sylvan Primordial.
I just don't want it becoming like 1v1, where there are constantly changes to the banlist.
For me this is their failure to uptake what has been happening in the last couple of years. I mean do they really listen to whats going on after new sets are released? Do they have the time, or even inclination? The answer will be no.
My only gripe with the ban list is: "The following is the official banned list for commander games. These cards (and others like them) should not be played without prior agreement from the other players in the game."
Sure, there is a chance of spending $4 on a booster and getting the Mythic Rare $30 super card. There is also a chance of surviving putting your tongue in a light socket.
For me this is their failure to uptake what has been happening in the last couple of years. I mean do they really listen to whats going on after new sets are released? Do they have the time, or even inclination? The answer will be no.
Do you have ANY evidence for this?
Any at all?
The length of time it took to ban Profit of Kruphix. The failure to ban Sol Ring and Mana Crypt. They have said it themselves that they will never be able to stop people from breaking the format because they just can't cover what people can do with cards. Isn't that the whole point of having a group of people making a list?
I've been reading the comments and a few of you are saying that Wizards shouldn't have anything to do with Commander rules and banning. News break, they are they ones who create and print cards for the commander format. They come up with mechanics for the format, like Myriad and Partner. Partner is essentially to break a rule. Let not be naive here, Wizards dictates where the format is heading and with good reason. They have the resources and brains to keep fueling its success. It makes no sense to keep the rules and ban list with a tiny individual group. None.
The length of time it took to ban Profit of Kruphix. The failure to ban Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.
Just checking that you have absolutely no evidence other than your own opinion.
And you don't.
The length of time taken to ban Prophet shows that the RC takes their responsibility seriously. Rather than quickly ban a card on the supposition that is would be a problem they left it legal and monitored the situation. Once they felt is surpassed a certain threshold they banned it. That sounds well considered with a view to letting people play with their cards to me.
Do you propose to head this revision of ban list yourself to lead us into the glorious future?
The RC's attitude if you don't like it is to convince your playgroup to implement a house rule. The easy analogy here is open source software: if you don't like the canonical version, modify it yourself.
And this arguement falls flat on its face (even in a "casual" setting) when you play on MtGO, or in a neutral location like a card shop, and you don't get to change the rules. You're forced to use the "official" banlist/rules, like it or not. As such, I would very much prefer the banlist to be handled by people who actually care about people as a whole, rather than foisting the issues on others to handle for themselves. If they don't want to handle it then why should they be the ones allowed to?
It was after this that my opinion became that the RC has their own utopia playgroup that exudes the spirit of EDH and only when a card disrupts their personal playgroup does the RC take action. So I am all for a group that is willing to play the part of a rules committee that is dedicated to maintaining the format and who is willing to remove the ambiguity and vagueness from the rules/banlist. Like was pointed out, "other cards like this" is not an acceptable way to write a banlist. "You cant play that card, its against the spirit of EDH." "Its not on the banlist so yes I can." "But the social contract..." "I bought a C16 deck, it didnt say anything about a 'social contract' in how to play the format."
As an example for how a banlist/rules list could work:
1) These [..] mana rocks are banned.
2) Any card that destroys all lands, either all of your own, all of your opponents, or all lands - Banned
3) Poison counters to kill - X
4) No infinite combos - you are only allowed to do a "combo" five times in a turn.
5) You are only allowed to take 2 extra turns at a time.
6) These specific cards [...] are banned.
To clarify, this is just a quick list I threw together off the top of my head that could better define rules/banned cards that cover issues people have with the format while still allowing for the "fun" aspect.
Wizards has no effect on either format now and will not in the future. Multiplayer Commander was a community driven format that caught on and became immensely popular. Duel Commander spawned from that to provide a more competitive environment.
No offense, but Wizards have a whole team working on making the Commander annal sets. To say they don't have a say on the Commander format is a not true.
I disagree with most of your point, so I don't want to rehash anything I said initially. However, I do want to address this quote.
I'll grant that Wizards obviously partakes in evolution of the format by introducing new cards. Your complaints are predicated on ban list decisions and overall philosophy of the format. While there are certainly things that can be improved (though I believe the format is in a very good place overall), my initial statement holds true within this context. Wizards does not dictate bans or philosophical changes to the format. You want them to and that is fine, but my point holds that it is extremely unlikely that Wizards will ever play a bigger role than just designing new cards for the format.
You're stating your opinions and acting as if they are a universal unquestioned truth. Not everyone agrees with you. I don't. Are the current rules and banned list perfect? No, I would say not. Do I think they would be better off in Wizards' hands? Probably not. Does Wizards even want to dedicate resources to maintaining a ban list for a non-competitive kitchen table format where they have no tournament data to justify ban decisions, and owning the community backlash that will necessarily come with any action (or inaction) they decide to take, when they have an experienced committee that is doing a good enough job for free? Again, probably not.
The length of time it took to ban Profit of Kruphix. The failure to ban Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.
Just checking that you have absolutely no evidence other than your own opinion.
And you don't.
The length of time taken to ban Prophet shows that the RC takes their responsibility seriously. Rather than quickly ban a card on the supposition that is would be a problem they left it legal and monitored the situation. Once they felt is surpassed a certain threshold they banned it. That sounds well considered with a view to letting people play with their cards to me.
Do you propose to head this revision of ban list yourself to lead us into the glorious future?
Less responsible, and more like they just don't want to make decisions. Which is the problem.
Lets look at their words for Profit..
Prophet is not a traditionally obvious problem card for Commander
By traditional, they mean that they didn't play it, or build decks around it, so wasn't a problem for them.
Do I personally want to revise the list? Well, I'll start with my local play group first I think. You know Rome wasn't built in a day. They are a special needs bunch however, into..lets say unhealthy living and the sorts, so a bit hard to educate, being as there is permanent brain damage that has happened.
Wizards has no effect on either format now and will not in the future. Multiplayer Commander was a community driven format that caught on and became immensely popular. Duel Commander spawned from that to provide a more competitive environment.
No offense, but Wizards have a whole team working on making the Commander annal sets. To say they don't have a say on the Commander format is a not true.
I disagree with most of your point, so I don't want to rehash anything I said initially. However, I do want to address this quote.
I'll grant that Wizards obviously partakes in evolution of the format by introducing new cards. Your complaints are predicated on ban list decisions and overall philosophy of the format. While there are certainly things that can be improved (though I believe the format is in a very good place overall), my initial statement holds true within this context. Wizards does not dictate bans or philosophical changes to the format. You want them to and that is fine, but my point holds that it is extremely unlikely that Wizards will ever play a bigger role than just designing new cards for the format.
Right lets make this clear. The founding http://mtgcommander.net members are going to die, Magic the Gathering will not. Either the rules and bannings are passed onto some sort of greater forum via the http://mtgcommander.net somehow. Maybe some sort of election? Or like a monarchy they will hand down the authority to their first born male children.
..Or probably the more likely scenario is that Wizards takes on this role as they officially support the format.
I don't know why people think this such a special or hard thing to do. Its just inevitable, so my debate is why wait?
The length of time it took to ban Profit of Kruphix. The failure to ban Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.
Just checking that you have absolutely no evidence other than your own opinion.
And you don't.
The length of time taken to ban Prophet shows that the RC takes their responsibility seriously. Rather than quickly ban a card on the supposition that is would be a problem they left it legal and monitored the situation. Once they felt is surpassed a certain threshold they banned it. That sounds well considered with a view to letting people play with their cards to me.
Do you propose to head this revision of ban list yourself to lead us into the glorious future?
Less responsible, and more like they just don't want to make decisions. Which is the problem.
Lets look at their words for Profit..
Prophet is not a traditionally obvious problem card for Commander
By traditional, they mean that they didn't play it, or build decks around it, so wasn't a problem for them.
Do I personally want to revise the list? Well, I'll start with my local play group first I think. You know Rome wasn't built in a day. They are a special needs bunch however, into..lets say unhealthy living and the sorts, so a bit hard to educate, being as there is permanent brain damage that has happened.
You sound like a blast to hang out with [/sarcasm]
Public Mod Note
(cryogen):
Infraction for trolling
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
One of the biggest current problems is that Sol Ring and Mana Crypt creates a skewed advantage to games in general, where in starting hands, they determine the outcome of games far more than anything else.
In my close to 12,000 commander games I've played, without a doubt the experience that ruins it the most is frequency of games that are determined by a couple of cards in a players starting hand.
I've never encountered anybody online who doesn't think Sol Ring and Mana Crypt shouldn't be removed from the format to make the play experience more fun. Does this not just scream a desire from a community to make changes!?
Hundreds of conversations about this subject through the course of games, and everybody is in agreement.
The failure to ban Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.
You seem really hung up on Sol Ring. You also threw around "fail," "failings," and "failure" an awful lot. To me, this indicates a huge misunderstanding on your part. Commander was created primarily as a casual multiplayer format. While it may have been co-opted by people wishing to play for an entirely different purpose (competitive duels), any rule or banning decisions that don't translate well are not a failing of the RC. I feel the RC has done rather well for their intended purposes. And if I could ban one card, it would not be Sol Ring.
Competitive duel and casual multi-player are completely different beasts and should not have the same ban lists. Look at Sol Ring as the poster child for this - in a fast-paces duel it can upset the balance so strongly that you never recover, yet in multi-player, anyone with too fast a start will have to face down approximately three loosely allied enemies who will generally make sure the advantage doesn't spiral out of control. I too have played thousands of games and have built close to fifty different decks now, and I find Sol Ring to be one of the most over-rated cards in the format. I can't even remember the last time I ran it in a deck.
That being said, if you want to hurl accusations of failure around, you should do it at Wizards, the very people you want to control the format, for not also providing an online version of duel commander. I wonder if they don't support that format because it conflicts too much with their interests in other duel formats or if they just haven't paid attention to the players who support it. In either case, these are the people you want in charge? As opposed to the group who created and popularized the format?
Will commander be a legitimate future format that sees tournament play? In my opinion, it very much should be.
No. Multiplayer free-for-all has no place in competitive tournaments. Commander is a format designed for multiplayer free-for-all. You might be able to get Duel Commander into the tournament scene, but Duel Commander is a completely different format, run by a different group. If you want to gripe about 1v1 Commander on MTGO using the Commander rules, gripe about MTGO not implementing Duel Commander. That's your actual problem.
For those that think this is not something that will ever happen, lets remember this is a format that has it's own annual set, such is its popularity. Never say never.
The Commander precons started out as part of the Summer of Fun, something meant for casual, non-tournament product. It has since replaced the Premium Deck Series, which was similarly not designed for tournaments. Just because something is an annual product does not mean that it will get a tournament made for it.
This is more on Wizards of the Coast. They have decided that same the rules and banning (http://mtgcommander.net) apply to both duel and multiplayer format.
No, they've decided to not bother forcing Commander players to play in pods of 3+. There is a huge difference there. MTGO isn't saying "play Duel Commander using Commander rules", it's saying "we'll let you play Commander 1v1 if you want".
Another huge problem for Magic Online players, is the slow uptake to implement rules and bannings. It can take months before changes are made. I feel that if Wizards of the Coast were to maintain the rules and banning themselves, then there would be much more incentive to update the program in a timely manner. It turns out their schedule does not coincide with Scott, Toby, Gavin and Sheldon little get together.
The Commander Rules Committee does rules and banlist updates at the same frequency (and on the same dates) as paper Magic does. If MTGO is slow keeping up, that's not the RC's fault.
Commander is now one of the leading formats for driving sales of Magic the Gathering cards, so Wizards of the Coast interest in this format is a priority.
Considering there are basically only 5 serious constructed formats these days, and two of them (Legacy and Vintage) are completely ignored by Wizards (outside digital-only reprint sets), "one of the leading" doesn't mean much, even if it's true. Wizards cares the most about Limited and Standard, because they make the most money. Limited has players opening sealed product, the only kind of product Wizards actually makes money on. Standard rotates, forcing players to constantly rebuild their decks and buy new cards (leading to more opened sealed product, the stuff Wizards makes money on).
Wizards has no effect on either format now and will not in the future. Multiplayer Commander was a community driven format that caught on and became immensely popular. Duel Commander spawned from that to provide a more competitive environment.
No offense, but Wizards have a whole team working on making the Commander annal sets. To say they don't have a say on the Commander format is a not true.
And as I recall, the Commander RC gets consulted on the Commander precons when it comes to stuff like planeswalker-commanders and abilities active from the Command zone (Derevi/Oloro).
For me this is their failure to uptake what has been happening in the last couple of years. I mean do they really listen to whats going on after new sets are released? Do they have the time, or even inclination? The answer will be no.
Do you have ANY evidence for this?
Any at all?
The length of time it took to ban Profit of Kruphix. The failure to ban Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.
Do you actually expect Wizards to ban Sol Ring if they took over the ban list? Wizards are the ones who put Sol Ring into every single Commander precon to date. Wizards is responsible for every EDH player and his dog having access to Sol Ring. Before the first Commander precons came out, Sol Ring was a much less commonly-seen card.
I think it is a nigh fruitless effort honestly. EDH should be house/group ruled in my opinion. Because most of the time, your playgroup(s) will dictate what kind of games they enjoy and what is considered acceptable compared to that criteria. A generic ban list really doesn't work too well, even now. Sure, in the context of Stores and random strangers playing EDH, I suppose a generic base ban list is required. However, even considering THAT, you never know what kind of games you're jumping into, as it could be combo paradise or creature feature or a mix etc. I think if EDH had been strictly monitored and specifically and purposely tailored for Casual Play only, many of these dilemmas wouldn't even have arisen, but I digress.
I think it is a nigh fruitless effort honestly. EDH should be house/group ruled in my opinion. Because most of the time, your playgroup(s) will dictate what kind of games they enjoy and what is considered acceptable compared to that criteria. A generic ban list really doesn't work too well, even now. Sure, in the context of Stores and random strangers playing EDH, I suppose a generic base ban list is required. However, even considering THAT, you never know what kind of games you're jumping into, as it could be combo paradise or creature feature or a mix etc. I think if EDH had been strictly monitored and specifically and purposely tailored for Casual Play only, many of these dilemmas wouldn't even have arisen, but I digress.
The thing though that is it not just house rules. People play online and when you go to a store, etc are bound by these rules and bannings. If you walk into a store and go lets do it "this way", it just causes arguments. That is why we need global rules and bannings..unfortunately.
It must be noted that Magic Online does not follow the duel commander rules and ban list from http://www.duelcommander.com, which is by far the most popular method for dueling.
I have no choice, like a local play group to determine how the game should be best constructed.
Why do I play commander?
I don't know much about the people who are behind http://mtgcommander.net. First of all I'd like to thank them for the format and maintaining some semblance of rules and a ban list. Lets not bite the hand that fed us.
However, my problem is that as a few individuals they just don't have the capacity to understand the greater community that commander has become and how commander as a format has grown and expanded.
As far as I can see the commander format for multiplayer is maintained by a group of friends; Scott, Toby, Gavin and Sheldon. They meet quarterly apparently. They just don't have the experience or time to consume information like Wizards of the Coast or the general community. Their local play is just never going to see the spectrum of how commander is played.
Commander has matured and grown beyond their capacity, fact. An example of this in the past was their slow uptake on banning Prophet of Kruphix. It shows a clear example where they simply didn't have the experience of playing or constructing decks and play testing with particular cards. It wasn't until I guess, we said "enough is enough", that they relinquished.
There is a need for maintaining the commander format pro-actively, not re-actively.
Casual vs Competitive
Probably the biggest issues for commander in general, especially for the ban list, is the growing separation between the format becoming an increasingly competitive format. There is a growing divide between casual fun play and those that like to make decks as good as they can.
This is really an interesting subject. Will commander be a legitimate future format that sees tournament play? In my opinion, it very much should be. I'd love to watch professionals tackle the format.
For those that think this is not something that will ever happen, lets remember this is a format that has it's own annual set, such is its popularity. Never say never.
Does this mean that casual and competitive can't go side-by-side together in one bundle of rules and bannings? Well debatable, but I believe a mix between the duel commander (http://www.duelcommander.com) and multiplayer (http://mtgcommander.net) rules and ban list can make for a complete format.
The argument that if you want to play more competitively, then play other formats like Vintage, Legacy or Modern, I'll point you back to the top where I've listed why I like commander format over these. This will be the same among a lot of you.
Duel format does not reflect the multiplayer format.
This is more on Wizards of the Coast. They have decided that the same the rules and banning (http://mtgcommander.net) apply to both duel and multiplayer format. A lot of this might be due to them not really wanting to invest in two different outside groups making decisions. It is after all a recipe for conflicts. However if WotC were to take on the role of official moderators, then we would probably see the result of demand for better rules and banning for the dueling format as well.
Whats wrong with the current multiplayer ban list? (and duel for MTGO)
One of the biggest current problems is that Sol Ring and Mana Crypt creates a skewed advantage to games in general, where in starting hands, they determine the outcome of games far more than anything else.
In my close to 12,000 commander games I've played, without a doubt the experience that ruins it the most is frequency of games that are determined by a couple of cards in a players starting hand.
It's actually does one of the things that these rules committee (http://mtgcommander.net) didn't want: Games where one player runs away with the game in the first couple of turns is certainly not fun for the group as a whole. Fail.
I've never encountered anybody online who doesn't think Sol Ring and Mana Crypt shouldn't be removed from the format to make the play experience more fun. Does this not just scream a desire from a community to make changes!?
Hundreds of conversations about this subject through the course of games, and everybody is in agreement.
There are threads and articles on this particular set of cards, http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/703634-sol-ring and http://www.mtgsalvation.com/articles/15187-the-math-of-banning-sol-ring-in-commander, so probably don't need to make this a discussion on the why or why not.
However in my opinion, commander will never be a legitimate future tournament format while we still have these cards. This isn't even a casual vs competitive debate, as these cards ruin it for both. http://www.duelcommander.com understands this concept, however, the jolly little bunch at http://mtgcommander.net do not. Why do we have to suffer a small groups failings?
Another huge problem for Magic Online players, is the slow uptake to implement rules and bannings. It can take months before changes are made. I feel that if Wizards of the Coast were to maintain the rules and banning themselves, then there would be much more incentive to update the program in a timely manner. It turns out their schedule does not coincide with Scott, Toby, Gavin and Sheldon little get together.
Commander is now one of the leading formats for driving sales of Magic the Gathering cards, so Wizards of the Coast interest in this format is a priority.
It starts here boys and girls. I feel that this is just going to be something that is inevitable. So why do we need to prolong or wait for something more proactive?
The MTG Salvation website alone proves that as a forum of discussion, that we are far more informed in deciding how the game can be maintained, than four dudes who don't even play together much (maybe not at all anymore).
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Wizards has no effect on either format now and will not in the future. Multiplayer Commander was a community driven format that caught on and became immensely popular. Duel Commander spawned from that to provide a more competitive environment.
I get that it would be nice for Duel Commander players to have the option to play online, but Wizards taking over one group or the other has no bearing on this. They already don't interfere with Multiplayer Commander and yet coded it into MTGO. The quest should be to add Duel Commander, not supplant Multiplayer Commander on MTGO.
I am also confused on the assertion that the current RC has no experience doing what they are doing. Sheldon is a judge who has been working long enough around Magic to know at least something about it. And, at least 1 committee member is already a Wizards employee. I don't know enough about the rest of the RC, but I know they have all been involved in Magic at a professional level in some capacity. If I recall, this started out as a judge format since the creators were all judges.
I am not suggesting that they are omnipotent and can do no wrong, but that is a far cry from being inept at handling the format.
They meet often enough and their decisions are made at the same time Wizards makes their own Banned lists announcements. This allows ample time for those same changes to made in MTGO 3 weeks later (when the ban list changes go into effect online).
I disagree that Duel is in any way nearly as popular as Multiplayer Commander. It may be different in your area, but I doubt that is true across the wide spectrum of LGS's and players.
So, while there can certainly be changes made to add Duel Commander to MTGO (which seems to be what most of this post is about), Wizards taking over either format will help no one in the long run.
Multiplayer is definitely more popular than duel, although there are more queues for duel on MTGO in general (but number of players about the same). People playing paper commander are realistically only going to gather for multiplayer magic, although I'm sure duel does see some play in stores.
However that's not what this post is about. Most of this post is about the failings of http://mtgcommander.net as a future method of maintaining the rules and banning of commander.
For me this is their failure to uptake what has been happening in the last couple of years. I mean do they really listen to whats going on after new sets are released? Do they have the time, or even inclination? The answer will be no. This is just by shear numbers. Nothing to do with them personally. I'm sure they are intelligent, etc. Its just that you can't keep up with the demands of Magic players and releases, unless you are directly working for the company or invest a lot of time and resources into it.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
I trust the RC more than WotC not to make egregious mistakes. And to admit them quickly and fix them when they do.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
This. Banning every half decent draw spell in every format they have control of makes me very nervous of the thought of them getting commander.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
Well, it's not meant to be. And it's not set up to be. And it's not planned to be.
So
And no, the RC is not and has never been interested in changing nor admitting mistakes. They've outright said that they do not care what the majority of the community wants and would rather see the format die than change their philosophy (it's buried in one of the banlist discussion threads, forgive me if I don't dig it up to quote here). I can trust WotC to at least do the profitable thing, I can't trust RC to do anything but what they want to do.
This also explains a lot about the RC's philosophy. They ban cards and make rules changes based on what they, personally, find fun or unfun. It isn't meant to be rigorous in any way... and that shows. Rules changes that many players have been clamoring for for years get ignored (poison counters to 20, limiting extra turns) while other rules changes come out of nowhere (tuck rule).
The RC's attitude if you don't like it is to convince your playgroup to implement a house rule. The easy analogy here is open source software: if you don't like the canonical version, modify it yourself.
This all breaks down when sitting down in a competitive environment with strangers. Even if we mutually respect each other and want to just have fun, what your playgroup considers bad behavior might be different from mine. Maybe you hate two-card infinite combos like Mike and Trike while I hate decks that generate huge amounts of mana too quickly with cards like Gaea's Cradle. Everybody has a different idea of what "don't be a jerk" means.
I don't want Wizards to take over EDH, but I do think there's room for a competitive version. Before last month's rules update, I felt that French (aka Duel) Commander filled that niche nicely. But the change to 20 life and the subsequent unbanning of problem cards like Grindstone have thrown that up in the air.
Before November, I strongly felt that any organized or semi-organized play, where there any prizes or even a semblance of competitiveness, should be using the French Commander banlist... even in multiplayer. I'm cautiously optimistic that French Commander will find its footing again.
Exactly this.
While House Rules work with set groups and set areas of friends, it does not work in neutral environments like a card store playing against strangers. And while that may not be every player in EDH, that represents a huge amount of players.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Duel Commander is a different game. I don't like it. They have too many cards banned and it is a combo heavy format.
I agree that some artifact mana should be banned. Turn one Sol Ring had a disproportionate win ratio. Tooth and Nail and Omniscience can also bite it. They are much more powerful than PoK or Sylvan Primordial.
I just don't want it becoming like 1v1, where there are constantly changes to the banlist.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Do you have ANY evidence for this?
Any at all?
There should be no room for ambiguous statements like that on the page displaying the ban list.
I've been reading the comments and a few of you are saying that Wizards shouldn't have anything to do with Commander rules and banning. News break, they are they ones who create and print cards for the commander format. They come up with mechanics for the format, like Myriad and Partner. Partner is essentially to break a rule. Let not be naive here, Wizards dictates where the format is heading and with good reason. They have the resources and brains to keep fueling its success. It makes no sense to keep the rules and ban list with a tiny individual group. None.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Just checking that you have absolutely no evidence other than your own opinion.
And you don't.
The length of time taken to ban Prophet shows that the RC takes their responsibility seriously. Rather than quickly ban a card on the supposition that is would be a problem they left it legal and monitored the situation. Once they felt is surpassed a certain threshold they banned it. That sounds well considered with a view to letting people play with their cards to me.
Do you propose to head this revision of ban list yourself to lead us into the glorious future?
I remember a year or two ago I was in a discussion in the banlist discussion thread about the banned as a commander/legal in the 99 versus the outright ban we have now. During this debate a member of the RC .... well you can read it here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/204400-general-discussion-of-the-official-multiplayer?page=1083#c27320 It had started around letting the "banned as a Commander" rule come back because people wanted to be able to play Braids, Cabal Minion in their 99.
It was after this that my opinion became that the RC has their own utopia playgroup that exudes the spirit of EDH and only when a card disrupts their personal playgroup does the RC take action. So I am all for a group that is willing to play the part of a rules committee that is dedicated to maintaining the format and who is willing to remove the ambiguity and vagueness from the rules/banlist. Like was pointed out, "other cards like this" is not an acceptable way to write a banlist. "You cant play that card, its against the spirit of EDH." "Its not on the banlist so yes I can." "But the social contract..." "I bought a C16 deck, it didnt say anything about a 'social contract' in how to play the format."
As an example for how a banlist/rules list could work:
1) These [..] mana rocks are banned.
2) Any card that destroys all lands, either all of your own, all of your opponents, or all lands - Banned
3) Poison counters to kill - X
4) No infinite combos - you are only allowed to do a "combo" five times in a turn.
5) You are only allowed to take 2 extra turns at a time.
6) These specific cards [...] are banned.
To clarify, this is just a quick list I threw together off the top of my head that could better define rules/banned cards that cover issues people have with the format while still allowing for the "fun" aspect.
The Mimeoplasm || Karador, Ghost Chieftain
Prossh, Skyraider of Kher || Vial Smasher/Tymna Group Slug
Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief || Talrand, Sky Summoner
Yidris - Unblockable Saboteurs || Kiki-Jiki, ETB breaker
Kess, Dissident Mage
I'll grant that Wizards obviously partakes in evolution of the format by introducing new cards. Your complaints are predicated on ban list decisions and overall philosophy of the format. While there are certainly things that can be improved (though I believe the format is in a very good place overall), my initial statement holds true within this context. Wizards does not dictate bans or philosophical changes to the format. You want them to and that is fine, but my point holds that it is extremely unlikely that Wizards will ever play a bigger role than just designing new cards for the format.
Lets look at their words for Profit.. By traditional, they mean that they didn't play it, or build decks around it, so wasn't a problem for them.
Do I personally want to revise the list? Well, I'll start with my local play group first I think. You know Rome wasn't built in a day. They are a special needs bunch however, into..lets say unhealthy living and the sorts, so a bit hard to educate, being as there is permanent brain damage that has happened.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
..Or probably the more likely scenario is that Wizards takes on this role as they officially support the format.
I don't know why people think this such a special or hard thing to do. Its just inevitable, so my debate is why wait?
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
You sound like a blast to hang out with [/sarcasm]
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Competitive duel and casual multi-player are completely different beasts and should not have the same ban lists. Look at Sol Ring as the poster child for this - in a fast-paces duel it can upset the balance so strongly that you never recover, yet in multi-player, anyone with too fast a start will have to face down approximately three loosely allied enemies who will generally make sure the advantage doesn't spiral out of control. I too have played thousands of games and have built close to fifty different decks now, and I find Sol Ring to be one of the most over-rated cards in the format. I can't even remember the last time I ran it in a deck.
That being said, if you want to hurl accusations of failure around, you should do it at Wizards, the very people you want to control the format, for not also providing an online version of duel commander. I wonder if they don't support that format because it conflicts too much with their interests in other duel formats or if they just haven't paid attention to the players who support it. In either case, these are the people you want in charge? As opposed to the group who created and popularized the format?
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
The Commander precons started out as part of the Summer of Fun, something meant for casual, non-tournament product. It has since replaced the Premium Deck Series, which was similarly not designed for tournaments. Just because something is an annual product does not mean that it will get a tournament made for it.
No, they've decided to not bother forcing Commander players to play in pods of 3+. There is a huge difference there. MTGO isn't saying "play Duel Commander using Commander rules", it's saying "we'll let you play Commander 1v1 if you want".
The Commander Rules Committee does rules and banlist updates at the same frequency (and on the same dates) as paper Magic does. If MTGO is slow keeping up, that's not the RC's fault.
Considering there are basically only 5 serious constructed formats these days, and two of them (Legacy and Vintage) are completely ignored by Wizards (outside digital-only reprint sets), "one of the leading" doesn't mean much, even if it's true. Wizards cares the most about Limited and Standard, because they make the most money. Limited has players opening sealed product, the only kind of product Wizards actually makes money on. Standard rotates, forcing players to constantly rebuild their decks and buy new cards (leading to more opened sealed product, the stuff Wizards makes money on).
And as I recall, the Commander RC gets consulted on the Commander precons when it comes to stuff like planeswalker-commanders and abilities active from the Command zone (Derevi/Oloro).
Do you actually expect Wizards to ban Sol Ring if they took over the ban list? Wizards are the ones who put Sol Ring into every single Commander precon to date. Wizards is responsible for every EDH player and his dog having access to Sol Ring. Before the first Commander precons came out, Sol Ring was a much less commonly-seen card.
[citation needed]
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith